Is this really a terrorist attack?
The incomparably pernicious Joe Lieberman said yesterday on Fox News that he intends to launch an investigation into “the motives of Hasan in carrying out this brutal mass murder, if a terrorist attack, the worst terrorist attack since 9/11.” Hasan's attack was carried out on a military base, with his clear target being American soldiers, not civilians. No matter one's views on how unjustified and evil this attack was, can an attack on soldiers — particularly ones in the process of deploying for a war — fall within any legitimate definition of “terrorism,” which generally refers to deliberate attacks on civilians?
The obvious problem with answering that question is that, as even the U.S. State Department recognizes, “no one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance” — despite the centrality of that term in our political discourse. In its 2001 publication, Patterns of Global Terrorism, the State Department did define “terrorism” to mean ” premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets,” and in turn defined “noncombatant targets” to include “military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty.” Only by accepting that definition (or one similar to it) could the attack on Fort Hood possibly be defined as “terrorism.”
But if one accepts that broadened definition of “terrorism” – that it includes violence that targets not only civilians but also combatants who are unarmed or not engaged in combat at the time of the attack — it seems impossible to exclude from that term many of the acts in which the U.S. and our allies routinely engage. Indeed, a large part of our “war” strategy is to kill people we deem to be “terrorists” or “combatants” without regard to whether they're armed or engaged in hostilities at the moment we kill them. Isn't that exactly what we do when we use drone attacks in Pakistan? Indeed, we currently have a “hit list” of individuals we intend to murder in Afghanistan on sight based on our suspicion that they're involved in the drug trade and thus help fund the Taliban. During its war in Gaza, Israel targeted police stations and, with one strike, killed 40 police trainees while in a parade, and then justified that by claiming police recruits were legitimate targets — even though they weren't engaged in hostilities at the time — because of their nexus to Hamas (even though the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem said the targeted recruits ”were being trained in first aid, human rights and maintaining public order”).
Is there any legitimate definition of “terrorism” that allows the Fort Hood attack to qualify but not those above-referenced attacks? The U.S., of course, maintains that it is incapable of engaging in “terrorism,” by definition, because “terrorism” is something only “subnational groups or clandestine agent” can do, but leaving that absurdly self-serving and incoherent exclusion aside, how can the Fort Hood attacks targeted at soldiers be “terrorism” but not our own acts?
Just to provide what ought to (but won't) be an unnecessary caveat: whether the U.S. is noble, righteous and good, and radical Muslims are rotted and evil, is completely irrelevant to the issue here. The laws of war and definitions of terrorism apply — as is true, by definition, for all things that we call ”laws” and “definitions” — equally to everyone, regardless of how good or bad someone is. Nor do any of these issues have anything to do with whether an act is justifiable; many things that are wrong and evil — indeed most — are not “terrorism.”
Isn't it fairly clear that the term “terrorism” is being applied to what Hasan did due to his religion rather than the acts themselves? Put another way, as ThinkProgress' Matt Duss put it: ”the definition of terrorism is not 'any violence by any Muslim anywhere at any time for any reason'.” But that — along with the repellent claim that saying ”Allahu Akbar” is “suggestive of terrorism,” rather than suggestive of someone who is Muslim (obviously the same thing in the minds of the people claiming that) – is exactly what seems to be driving discussions of this attack. It's likely that there will always be a lack of clarity about exactly what motivated Hasan — some combination of mental instability, religious fervor and political conviction — but, regardless of motive, the only way to define an attack on soldiers as an act of “terrorism” is to indict ourselves in the same way.
Si les attaques contre les soldats désormais admissibles, comment est-il possible d'exclure beaucoup d'actions américaines? Par Glenn Greenwald Les incomparablement pernicieuse Joe Lieberman a déclaré hier sur Fox Nouvelles qu'il al'intention de lancer une enquête sur «les motifs de Hasan dans l'accomplissement de cette assassiner masse brutale, si une attaque terroriste, la pire attaque terroriste depuis le 9 / 11." Hasan attaque a été menée sur une base militaire, avec son objectif clair être des soldats américains, non les civils. Aucun point de vue une autre question sur la façon injustifiée et mal cette attaque a été, peut d'une attaque contre des soldats – en particulier ceux dans le processus de déploiement d'une guerre – relèvent de l'une définition légitime du «terrorisme», qui s'applique généralement aux attaques délibérées contre des civils ? Le problème évident de répondre à cette question est que, puisque même le département d'Etat américain reconnaît, "pas une définition du terrorisme a gagné l'acceptation universelle" – en dépit de la centralité de ce terme dans notre discours politique. En 2001 dans sa publication, Patterns of Global Terrorism, le Département d'Etat n'a pas défini le «terrorisme» pour dire «avec préméditation, des violences politiques perpétrées contre des cibles non combattantes», et à tour de rôle défini "des cibles non combattantes» pour y inclure "le personnel militaire qui, au moment de l'incident ne sont pas armés et / ou pas de service. "C'est seulement en acceptant que la définition (ou une similaire) pourrait l'attaque de Fort Hood éventuellement être défini comme« terrorisme ». Mais si l'on accepte cette définition élargie de «terrorisme» – qu'il comprend la violence qui vise non seulement les civils mais aussi les combattants qui ne sont pas armés ou non engagés dans un combat au moment de l'attaque – il semble impossible d'exclure de ce terme de nombreuses des actes dans lesquels les États-Unis et nos alliés s'engagent régulièrement. En effet, une grande partie de notre "guerre" stratégie est de tuer les personnes que nous estimons être des «terroristes» ou des «combattants» sans égard à savoir s'ils sont armés ou engagés dans des hostilités au moment où nous les tuer . N'est-ce pas exactement ce que nous faisons quand nous utilisons des attaques drone au Pakistan? En effet, nous avons actuellement une liste de "hit" de personnes que nous avons l'intention d'assassiner en Afghanistan à vue basé sur notre soupçon qu'ils sont impliqués dans le commerce de la drogue et contribuer ainsi à financer les talibans. Au cours de sa guerre à Gaza, les postes de police israéliens ciblés et, à une grève, a tué 40 policiers stagiaires tandis que dans une parade, puis justifie en prétendant que les recrues de la police étaient des cibles légitimes – même si elles n 'étaient pas t engagés dans des hostilités à l'époque – en raison de leur lien avec le Hamas (même si le groupe israélien des droits humains B'Tselem a indiqué que les recrues ciblées »ont été formés aux premiers secours, les droits de l'homme et maintien de l'ordre public»). Continuer la lecture Est-il légitime de toute définition de «terrorisme» qui permet à l'attaque de Fort Hood se qualifier, mais pas ceux au-dessus des attaques référencées? Les Etats-Unis, bien sûr, soutient qu'il est incapable de se livrer à «terrorisme», par définition, parce que " "le terrorisme est quelque chose que les« groupes sous-nationaux ou d'un agent clandestin »peut faire, mais en laissant absurde que l'auto-service et l'exclusion incohérente de côté, comment peut-Fort Hood attaques ciblées sur des soldats comme« terrorisme », mais pas à nos propres actes? Seulement à fournir ce qui devrait (mais pas) être une mise en garde inutile: si les États-Unis musulmans est noble, juste et bon, et radicale est pourri et le mal, est totalement indifférent à la question ici. Les lois de la guerre et les définitions du terrorisme – comme c'est le cas, par définition, pour tout ce que nous appelons "lois" et "Définitions" – également à tous, quelle que soit la bonne ou mauvaise quelqu'un. Ni faire aucune de ces questions n'ont rien à faire avec si un acte est justifiable; beaucoup de choses qui sont erronées et le mal – en fait le plus – ne sont pas «le terrorisme». N'est-il pas assez clair que le terme «terrorisme» est appliquée à ce que Hasan n'a en raison de sa religion plutôt que les actes eux-mêmes? En d'autres termes, comme Duss Matt ThinkProgress 'put it: "La définition du terrorisme n'est pas« toute violence commis par toute musulmans partout et à tout moment pour n'importe quelle raison ». Mais qui – avec la revendication répulsif que dire «Allahu Akbar» est «suggestive du terrorisme", plutôt que suggestives de quelqu'un qui est musulman (évidemment la même chose dans l'esprit des gens prétendant que) – C'est exactement ce qui semble à la conduite des discussions de cette attaque. Il est probable qu'il y aura toujours un manque de clarté quant exactement ce qui a motivé Hasan – une combinaison d'instabilité mentale, la ferveur religieuse et de conviction politique – mais, quel que soit le motif, la seule manière de définir une attaque contre des soldats comme un acte de «terrorisme» est de nous accuser de la même manière.
<b>News</b> Corp To Remove All Content From Google Searches?
My guess, Rupert isn't silly enough to think that there is more value in <b>News</b> content being hidden than there is in it being searchable. Rather, this is probably just Rupert further positioning <b>News</b> in what he believes will be upcoming …
Conversation: Caroll Spinney, the Man Inside Big Bird: <b>News</b> Desk <b>…</b>
This unit strapped to your chest—in your memoir, “The Wisdom of Big Bird,” you jokingly call it an “electronic bra.” I spend a lot of time time thinking about <b>news</b>, so to me it looked like a bomb strapped to your chest. …
Ft. Hood Shooter Hasan AWAKE and TALKING
Lets put Fox <b>news</b> to the test… Did they say they were wrong about Saddam being behind 9/11? Have they apologized for saying that the health bill has a death panel in it and will kill old people? When they do apologize for that and …
Irshad Manji, The Trouble with Islam A wake-up call for honesty and change; Mainstream Publishing, Edinburgh and London, 2004; 254 pages.
This is an easy read “as smooth as milk” and equally digestible. Manji prosecutes a fairly rigorous and comprehensive analysis of the problems associated with modern Islam in particular, one that is of tremendous relevance given the hundreds killed by suicide bombers almost on a daily basis. Muslims kill other Muslims in the main in order to defeat their stated enemy, typically Jews or Americans though the ire could equally focus on any group that is seen to threaten Islam, though of course the logic of killing your own kind to avenge your enemy seems to be a bit lost. Manji's catalogue of problems associated with Islam may have applied to Christianity in the past, but I don't think any other modern mainstream religion including Judaism can be compared in the context of violence and treatment of the “other” to Islam (despite claims to the contrary). Tribal religions can vaunt themselves over others arrogating for themselves the God given right to pillage and destroy whomever or whatever they please (in the name of God and self defence). Thus we see the superior Sunnis killing the Shias as infidels and the pacific Sufis marginalised into the periphery, also regarded as infidel material. And that's just intra Islamic violence. Manji's book is quite old now. Since then, we have witnessed Islamic beheadings of innocent people be they Hindus, Buddhists, Christians or Jews as well as burning people alive, proudly placed as videos on the web. After having exposed the pact of Umar and much discussion Manji states: “Let me propose this much: equality can't exit in the desert, not if the taxonomy of the tribe is to remain intact” in one of the most forceful sentences in the book.
This is a comprehensive survey based on history and personal experience including a trip to Israel and the trouble she had seeing Islam's holiest shrines as a woman. As an example of the works breadth, Manji queries the lack of an outcry to the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha's from a Muslim feminist: ” 'Manji, do you know what's happening to Muslims in Palestine?' …. Somebody return me to earth or transport my butt to a part of the solar system where we distinguish between justice and justification.”
I enjoyed Manji's treatment of the Palestinian conflict and her trenchant analysis of freedom and openness in Israel compared to her neighbours. By playing the victim card, Muslims seem to have lost out so far. Each and every time something terrible happens, the finger seems to be pointed at the Jews and Americans. Make no mistake, much of the Middle East convinced themselves that 9/11 was a Zionist conspiracy in all earnestness. There is nothing new here. The Jews were accused of spreading lies as far back as 1848, the scapegoats of choice for any calamity in the Islamic world. The exploration of anti-Semitism from a relatively short Islamic golden age to the present is telling.
Irshad scorns and chastises the rise of Whabism from Saudi Arabia and highlights the spread of this brand of Islam thanks to petro dollars. More than the West, it is Arab culture that has colonised global Islam. The author exposes hypocrisy on several fronts and scorns the culture of ignorance that Wahabism and what is described as “foundermentalism” in particular has created. We learn about Turkish observatories that were torn down shortly after construction because of complaints from the Mullahs and free thinking philosophers like Ibn Rashd who were assassinated for expressing themselves. Saudi Arabia has been busy obliterating historic Muslim architecture in case it encourages idolatry and Muslims are kept ignorant about the Jewish roots of their faith (or at least, these roots are not emphasised).
Yet Manji remains a Muslim, beloved by many other Muslims sick of the lengths to which hatred is espoused on the basis of the Koran and Hadiths. A different kind of interpretation is possible, toning down the violent rhetoric, begging the question as to what constitutes a Dhimmi or a Believer? A reformed Islam is surely possible and Manji's is probably the first major book exploring reasons for hope within the Islamic diaspora, particularly in the West.
Manji explains that Allahu Akbar does not mean so much “God is great” but that “God is greater”, Greater than my petty views and opinions and the potential need to kill and destroy in His name.
I think that the length of her essay does not permit enough room to explore the solutions (operation Itjihad) in bringing about reformation – one topic explored in some detail is women's empowerment. We see that Manji is passionate for the accommodation of Muslims by civilisation at large, and they should at least be grateful (given many don't like this book) that she explains the need for Muslim immigration into the Western or Developed world if they are to maintain their productivity. Manji talks passionately about the need to educate the disenfranchised young in Muslim countries via media programs: “Whoever denies these kids economic and civic participation will incite a degree of chaos capable of convulsing much of the planet”. She seeks the participation of anyone with resources to help Muslims to think independently, outside the box. She calls this Itjihad, too long swept under the carpet by theocratic governments. Above all, Manji calls out for sincerity, honesty, tolerance and openness in Islam's dealings with the other. Something all of us could celebrate.
The author is a powerful, self critical and brave communicator and activist and has obviously started something. One of her Jewish friends thinks she may have been too harsh on Islam. Having appreciated this book I can only hope it will influence Believers in a positive way but Manji's epistle probably falls largely on deaf ears. At least she may be a Cassandra forewarning her kindred and us poor infidels as to dangers ahead. This surely rates as a document of its time, worthy of dissemination and discussion now and in the future. Its impact if any, remains to be seen.
Yet another day, one more high quality posting. There’s a cause you have such a major pursuing and this can be it.